9.07.2006

Starbucks offensive?



<------ Does this offend you?



Starbucks is temporarily reviving their original logo, featuring a siren with bare breasts, which some people naturally find offensive.





From Wikipedia:
"The company logo is a siren (sometimes called a mermaid, but more properly known as a melusine since she has two tails). The logo has been streamlined over the years. In the first version, the Starbucks siren had bare breasts and a fully-visible double fish tail. In the second version, her breasts were covered by hair, but her navel was still visible, and the fish tail was cropped slightly. In the current version, her navel and breasts are not visible at all, and only vestiges remain of the fish tails.

"Beginning September 2006...Starbucks will be reintroducing the brown logo on cups. This change will apply to only paper (hot) cups. Starbucks says that this will be done to show the company's heritage from the Pacific Northwest and to celebrate 35 years of business."
From KOMO, the Seattle-area ABC affiliate:
"The 1971 original is "a twin tailed mermaid, or siren as she's called in Greek mythology," says Starbucks Carol Pucik. The siren also has bare breasts. Pucik says every hot beverage cup in their Washington and Oregon company owned stores will feature the original logo over the next two months....in the early 1990's, there were growing complaints about the appropriateness of the original logo..."
On a related note, KING, the Seattle-area NBC affiliate, says that
"A Kent elementary school principal has asked that teachers stopping for a cup on the way to work be sure to get a cup sleeve to cover up the image.

"The principal at that school made a decision that she thought that it could be distracting for students," school district spokeswoman Becky Hanks said."



What do you think?




5 comments:

  1. Anonymous8:50 PM

    Mainly I think it's just plain ugly. Not so much offensive. I don't remember seeing it before.

    As for the nudity. This week I was teaching my 2nd grade daughter about Michelangelo and Renaissance art. She and I looked at the art in the Sistine Chapel, among many others. I wondered what she'd say about all the naked people.

    She didn't even mention it. I told her it was art, and she never seemed to give a second thought to why so many of the people didn't have clothes. In short, I think kids will respond according to how they've been taught to view art. But in a public school... I'd likely make the same decision as that principal in an attempt to stay of out court and avoid a lot of grief over something as silly as a coffee cup.

    cindy

    ReplyDelete
  2. Kudos, Cindy for teaching your daughter about art. That's awesome.

    I agree about the school's decision. it really isn't appropriate in a school setting, but as long as adults are aware of it, it shouldn't be a problem.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think it's ugly too but I'm not really into art. I have often wondered about the Christian position on nudity in art and have yet to come to any conclusions.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi there...I just recently found your blog and am having fun exploring. I understand the issues with the schools. However, with that said, I have to admit that I do not find this offensive. Perhaps if we were more comfortable with breasts, women would be allowed to feed their children in public without the outcry that so often is problematic and leads to women having to feed their children in a dirty mall bathroom.

    Just another persective...

    Jamie

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jamie - I agree. I believe the paranoia has gotten out of hand. Thanks for your thoughts.

    ReplyDelete